Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's claim that personalized internet radio stations were 'interactive services' was flatly rejected 'as a matter of law' by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Arista Records v. Launch Media. In affirming the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant, Launch Media — acquired during the lawsuit by Yahoo! — the Court said it did not even need to concern itself with possible errors in the jury instructions, since the trial judge should have directed a verdict for defendant 'as a matter of law' on the question of whether the radio stations were 'interactive services.' At pages 23-42 of its 42-page opinion (PDF), the appeals court carefully analyzed how Launch Media's personalized internet radio stations worked, and noted that the users could neither obtain and play on demand a particular song, nor obtain the transmission of a particular program, thus rendering the RIAA's claim of 'interactivity' meritless."

So you're saying that the RIAA lawsuits are an attempt to mandate Atheism as manditory? Or is this a claim that Christians should be opposed to RIAA practices as a fundamental evil?

I'm sorry, but you can't logically claim something is neutral with respect to religion and the religious are a bunch of brainwashed zealots. Doesn't work. Try it: "OK, side A is rationally right, and side B is irrationally, dangerously and fanatically wrong. I figured that out by not having a strong bias for or against side B, as

I wouldn't say they keep "winning". They've had 2 trials, in 1 of which the defendant admitted liability. In most contested cases they've discontinued the case, scurrying away with their tails between their legs.

I can't wait for the day when there is no RIAA. The established recording industry is of no use to anyone since the advent of cheap recording and duplication. Good musical instruments are expensive, recording them no longer is.

It's a zombie industry that needs a stake through its heart or something.

Something like "Redundant Without Prejudice", that would lower a comment's score without affecting karma. Clearly the Parent was being composed as its predecessor was was submitted. It would be nice to mod it down for the benefit of people reading at 1, but I won't penalize somebody for something like this. If it were submitted 20 minutes later, that would be a different story,.

As for why I feel that way: Interactive, the way you see it, would mean that radios are interactive. Which would break the whole idea of broadcast to start with. After all, I set my dial to a channel and listen. If I don't like it, I can switch stations. In fact, I know what genres the stations tend to play, so I can add them to a "favorites" list called presets if I like them. The broadcast stations react to listeners by tracking how many they have and adjusting content to keep and expand that base. And, if listeners disappear, a station will react to that input (or lack thereof) and shutdown or change genres.

Oh, even better, many of these stations "take requests" from some listeners and then play those songs. In that regard, broadcast radio is *more interactive* than the services presented by Launch, and Pandora.

So... I don't know what exactly you were going for in your post, but this has nothing to do with just hate for the RIAA... This is a case where we finally see someone applying common sense and *law* to a lawsuit.

I imagine there's some lower bound here on listeners / channel. I mean with a near infinite number of channels and a channel search tool you can have your personal selection on demand. I haven't counted the radio channels recently but they're pretty few in this context.

Oh, even better, many of these stations "take requests" from some listeners and then play those songs.

I used that just a couple of days ago; WQNA was playing raggae, so I called up and asked for Marley. The next song was a Bob Marley song. If I'd requested "No Woman, No Cry" he'd likely have played that tune as well.

However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.

For instance, "responsibility" may have different meanings in civil and criminal law, and both are different from what is meant in normal English. Every field has specific technical j

However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.

And you're absolutely correct, as well. The ruling makes it clear that the question is whether the application "provides a program specifically created for the user", not whether it's interactive in any technical sense. I mean, an AM radio is interactive.

no more and no less than a regular AM/FM radio, you can turn it on or off, volume up or down, change stations but other than that i see no interactive to it, at least a local radio station that broadcasts (on either AM 530Khz to 1710Khz or FM 87Mhz to 108Mhz) has a local request line you can call on a telephone and make requests or dedicate a song to that special someone

Right. I just read over the whole decision, and other than the details of the specific implementation, the overall logic of the random/unpredictable nature of the playlist is what makes it non-interactive. In the LAUNCH service in question, users rated songs individually as well, and were also able to skip them as you are in Pandora. I think this stencils pretty directly onto the other service, right? users are unable to choose the specific song in either case, only preferences.

Well, I used to be a paid Launchcast subscriber before it was flushed by Yahoo. That about sums up the experience for paid subscribers. Unpaid subscribers had limited skips and a few commercials now and again.

I do like Pandora, but I greatly preferred my Launchcast stations because you could rate genres 1 to 100, artists 1 to 100, albums 1 to 100, and songs 1 to 100. Then you could apply moods to your stations. It was VERY granular and my station only played the songs I really really liked or wanted to l

Will this lead to lower rates for Pandora? From the summary they sound like a similar service, yet the fact they aren't being sued implies to me that they've "paid up" at the higher, interactive rate.

I give Pandora referrer credit for every song I buy from Amazon or iTunes, but since Pandora can't track referrer income to particular uses, I still get hit up to pay their RIAA-tax subscription money or GTFO their service each month. I know Pandora has to do it to survive, but if this ruling lowers their rates maybe they can do away with the audio ads or raise the monthly cap.

There was a commercial on the radio yesterday touting a new Federal law called the Local Radio Freedom Act [nab.org], which is designed to keep radio from paying the same fees as Pandora. The commercial said that my congressman (John Shimkis (R) and both my Senators (Richard Durbin (D) and Roland Burris (D, unelected) are all for it. I think I'll write them and tell them internet radio shouldn't have to pay, either.

The difference is what the words would imply. A matter of law is one where the question (and/or answer) are related to the law on the books. The specific facts of the case aren't relevant, because the law itself is what we are talking about here. A good example would be if a mechanic was charged with 1st degree murder for forgetting to check if the breaks on a vehicle were good. The facts of the case, if the mechanic actually did check or not, wouldn't be relevant. The reason is that as a matter of law, tha

I'm a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you get your legal advice here, you may as well just sign away your house, children, and car now and savve on legal fees . . .

Anyway . . .

That's not quite right; the facts as alleged by that party do matter. "As a matter of law" means that the evidence doesn't matter. Such a ruling means that even if they could prove everything that they alleged, they would still lose.

In this case, they found that the judge did indeed err--but not by giving the wrong instructions, as the RIAA alleged, but by even letting the jury hear the case, as no reasonable jury could have found for the RIAA. (Yeah, and here we get a bit murky with two overlapping "as a matter of law" usages, one on the allegations, and one on the strength of the evidence. Life's rough:)

An issue can be decided as a matter of "law" or "fact". If it a factual matter, than the final arbiter will be the factfinder which is usually a jury, but can be a judge, in a bench trial. However, some issues are considered to be so obvious, or of a public policy or legal nature, such that Congress or the appellate courts have deemed it appropriate to leave the decision up to the judge, rather than the factfinder (jury).
This is a very important distinction. First, if an issue is a matter of law, an appel

BTW, phrases such as "matter of law" are terms of art, and the usage is often different from that of lay English (say, that you would find in a standard dictionary). While the definition can sometimes be derived from the word alone, it's best to look it up in a dedicated law dictionary such as Black's Law Dictionary.
There are many issues which courts have deemed to be "matters of law" that are clearly factual in nature. It's a policy determination - and thus the distinction can not always be derived from

I am not an lawyer either, but the concept between a "matter of law" and a "matter of fact" is pretty basic.

Matters of fact: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did."

Matters of law: "Of course I did it; it ain't against the law, bub!" "Yes it is".

In this case, the fact that internet radio stations were broadcasting copyrighted material (for which they had the proper licenses) was not in doubt. The question was one of law: is that an "interactive service" or not, which has additional restrictions on it?

I am not an lawyer either, but the concept between a "matter of law" and a "matter of fact" is pretty basic.
Matters of fact: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did."
Matters of law: "Of course I did it; it ain't against the law, bub!" "Yes it is".
In this case, the fact that internet radio stations were broadcasting copyrighted material (for which they had the proper licenses) was not in doubt. The question was one of law: is that an "interactive service" or not, which has additional restrictions on it?

In the context in which it was said in this case, it meant simply that there was no factual issue, that under the conceded undisputed facts, it was not interactive, no matter how you slice it.

Yes, but note that "costs" are not the same as "fees". Court costs are quite minimal -- filing fees and such -- it's not the same as attorney's fees and the other expenses related to litigation.

Incidentally, to clarify the question above, "as a matter of law" means that the question could have been resolved by the judge on a motion to dismiss (without reference to the facts and assuming all facts to be true as alleged in the complaint), rather than on a motion for summary judgment (which relies on statement

You don't hear a lot from them in the news anymore. They've got their big iron, I suppose, and were hyping their mainframes as more cost effective to run than clusters of computers. You don't hear about a lot of AIX out there anymore, even though Sun went down the tubes. Seems like every time I see a data center or a CRM application these days it's either Windows or Linux and usually web-based.

You know, I've seen this a couple times before. About a decade ago I was a a Linux con and SGI was there. They we

If this is indeed the case, that an internet station is just like a "regular" station, then how many can someone have? I am picturing this:

"This is all The Beatles 'Strawberry Fields Forever', all the time!""This is the Foo Fighters 'The Pretender', all day and all night!"

One station playing the same song over and over. Or even just the same album. Actual over-the-air radio stations couldn't afford to do this, but with the Internet, it would be fairly easy. You could "tune in" to the station, record it once

Considering the playlist rotation of the top-40 stations, you can pretty much do that anyway. Plug you computer into your radio and let it sample, you'll probably have a copy of that song in a couple of hours.